Seems that people rushing in for the release of the upcoming result and so happen that coincide with the 6th week duration for BIG to run up.....

Nevertheless, hope it shiong over .8 which is the resistance.... Huat ar...

have faith in this stock!!!!!

Assuming a 50% simple majority is needed for takeover, I think JNJ still stands a chance to do a takeover. As of May 2007, Mr Lu and Associates still owns about 35% share. Of course this will be diluted if JWMS's deal goes through (maybe to about 30%)....but Mr Lu and Associates still has a significant percentage to decide on the deal.   

What the Doctors Aren't Disclosing

A new study shows how authors of medical journal articles flout rules on revealing conflicts of interest

by Arlene Weintraub

A group of researchers at Duke University scoured 746 studies on heart stents published in medical journals over the course of a year and were shocked to discover two huge omissions. First, 83% of the papers failed to disclose whether any of the authors were paid consultants for companies, even though many journals formally require that information. And of those articles specifically describing clinical trials, 72% didn't say who funded the research. When it comes to policing their disclosure rules, says lead author Kevin Weinfurt of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, "these journals should be doing better."

Virtually every medical organization urges physicians to be up front about their financial ties to industry. It's especially a concern when doctors who publish studies about drugs and medical devices receive funding from the companies that make those products. Over the past few years, a spate of safety warnings and product recalls has left journal editors fearful that company-paid researchers might be filtering their results to highlight the positive. So the publications have toughened up their disclosure policies, hoping that transparency by itself would neutralize conflicts of interest.

The Duke study shows that even when authors do divulge their connections, some statements are less than forthright. In all, 168 authors out of 2,985 made disclosures in the journal articles, which were published in 2006. Through simple Internet searches, the Duke team discovered that some physicians who said they had no conflicts of interest in fact served on advisory boards of companies that make stents. One person co-founded a stent company. (The Duke paper doesn't name doctors.)

The report reveals just how deeply corporate interests have infiltrated medical research. The top funding sources named in disclosure statements were stentmakers Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Boston Scientific (BSX), and Medtronic (MDT), as well as drugmakers Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) and Sanofi-Aventis (SNY). The last two co-market the blood thinner Plavix, which is widely prescribed to stent patients.

Contacted by BusinessWeek (MHP), spokespeople for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, and Sanofi said in e-mails that they require authors to disclose all financial support from their companies. (J&J and Medtronic did not respond by publication time.)

BUILT-IN LIMITATIONS

Yes, Hulumas, I tend to agree with you at this point.

I have been thinking about the same questions too ever since news of the deal broke out.  I think to get the answers, instead of asking the obvious question why JWS would sell, ask another more cryptic question - why would JWS want BIG's shares instead of hard currency? 

To put it another way around - if you were a businessman in charge of a profitable enterprise, and someone wants to buy your shares, you would:

a.   not wanna sell because you believe that your business is a goldmine.

b.   sell for cash in return.

In this case, JWS did not choose option a or b.  Instead, it is very curious that they sold and settled for payment FULLY in BIG's shares.  This must mean that they sold NOT because they did NOT believe that their china business is NOT  a goldmine.  IF JWS thought that their business is not good, they would have sold for cash, right?  This is what any sensible businessman would do.

So, putting yourself in JWS's shoes, why would you sell your whole company and not want to be paid in cash?  By settling for stock, you run the risk that BIG might never make it, or its shares remain depressed and you would have therefore given away your company for little or even nothing.

So, unless JWS made this deal with BIG in a drunken stupour after a heavy drinking session (which I am assuming that they did not), what is it in BIG that they see to be so confident to sell away the whole company for stock?

If you can connect the dots, you would have gotten the answers to your questions.  I must say it would be very, very interesting to see how this works out.